Designer Burt Rutan, billionaire Paul Allen, rocketman Elon Musk and former NASA boss Mike Griffin are teaming to develop an air-launch rocket system that would use a super aircraft the size of two 747s to carry a liquid-fueled SpaceX booster to 30,000 feet where it would be dropped

"epic" was also my first thought, but the longer I'm thinking this through the more doubts I get about it.

*) Their plan calls for 2016 test flights (of the plane alone?). NO big aerospace project is ever on schedule, not even Scaled's afaik. Even if the carrier plane is similar to WK2, I guess the schedule could easily slip to at least 2018. They haven't even built the hangar yet.

*) The core of SpaceX's competitive pricing is their lean, almost exclusive in house development, production and operation. Stratolaunch looks like taking a lean SpaceX rocket and wrapping it in a ginormous amount of overhead. Air-launch might make sense from an operational standpoint and because of flexibility, but I have to wonder how that could outweigh the overhead in this case?

*) What is Mike Griffin doing in that kind of "aerospace dream team"? Don't tell me he has finally given up on Ares/SLS nonsense!?

*) etc.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but from all the current projects this is the one I am the most skeptic about. (doesn't sound like a proper English sentence, where did I go wrong?)

"epic" was also my first thought, but the longer I'm thinking this through the more doubts I get about it.

*) Their plan calls for 2016 test flights (of the plane alone?). NO big aerospace project is ever on schedule, not even Scaled's afaik. Even if the carrier plane is similar to WK2, I guess the schedule could easily slip to at least 2018. They haven't even built the hangar yet.

*) The core of SpaceX's competitive pricing is their lean, almost exclusive in house development, production and operation. Stratolaunch looks like taking a lean SpaceX rocket and wrapping it in a ginormous amount of overhead. Air-launch might make sense from an operational standpoint and because of flexibility, but I have to wonder how that could outweigh the overhead in this case?

*) What is Mike Griffin doing in that kind of "aerospace dream team"? Don't tell me he has finally given up on Ares/SLS nonsense!?

*) etc.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but from all the current projects this is the one I am the most skeptic about. (doesn't sound like a proper English sentence, where did I go wrong?)

The real advantage is being able to launch at any time (no weather issues - you fly above it), and to fly to the launch point (over the ocean) which means easier certification and any orbit trajectories. it's also, effectively, a completely reusable first stage.